Time |
Nick |
Message |
10:01 |
walterbender |
We have an agenda in the wiki... |
10:01 |
|
the first topic is Bernie's but he is not here yet... |
10:02 |
|
the second topic is the DP. has anyone heard back from the committee? |
10:02 |
cjb |
nope |
10:02 |
SeanDaly |
not I |
10:02 |
walterbender |
nor I :( |
10:02 |
|
I know they got my message regarding the deadline |
10:03 |
|
I am afraid this process has not worked. |
10:03 |
bernie |
This is Bernie, Adam, and Mel. |
10:03 |
|
We're all here. |
10:03 |
walterbender |
ciao bernardo |
10:03 |
SeanDaly |
greetings bernieadammel |
10:03 |
walterbender |
do you need the backlog? |
10:04 |
bernie |
no, we have it. |
10:04 |
|
(Mel is typing) |
10:04 |
walterbender |
since bernie is here, let's start with his topic. |
10:04 |
bernie |
which topic is that? |
10:04 |
walterbender |
#TOPIC teams@ lists |
10:04 |
bernie |
Ah, yes. I see. |
10:05 |
walterbender |
Bernie, can you summarize your proposal? |
10:06 |
bernie |
I worry that we'd end up using long cc lists too much if we do not have a standard way to share business/strategic communication with key people such as team leaders |
10:06 |
|
I'd propose a teams@ list for this kind of communication. |
10:06 |
SeanDaly |
I like this idea |
10:07 |
|
often worry about teams not interacting enough (fear justified or not) |
10:07 |
tomeu |
I don't see why team coordinators would need to be much more involved in these discussions than other people |
10:07 |
bernie |
there's potential for abuse of course... as there was for the wide-audience slobs |
10:07 |
walterbender |
bernie: can you give a hypothetical example of how it would be used? |
10:07 |
tomeu |
do we have any past situations that support this need? |
10:07 |
SeanDaly |
A media campaign launch :-) |
10:08 |
|
"all hands on deck" |
10:08 |
bernie |
tomeu: for example, getting you and erikos in the loop regarding the nokia deal |
10:08 |
|
tomeu: or the launchpad thing |
10:09 |
SeanDaly |
or, my Osor meeting in which hosting possibilities were discussed (still have to write up a debrief) |
10:09 |
walterbender |
bernie: I am not sure I understand |
10:10 |
|
each of these cases seems unique. what is the common denominator that a list would address? |
10:10 |
|
Doesn't each team, e.g., marketing or infrastructure already have a list? |
10:11 |
tomeu |
frankly, I see that proposal dividing more than uniting our community |
10:11 |
SeanDaly |
well, the problem is lack of interaction |
10:11 |
walterbender |
SeanDaly: can you please elaborate? |
10:11 |
SeanDaly |
for example if marketing stuff which impacts development, |
10:11 |
cjb |
tomeu: yes, it does seem to elevate members into "trusted or untrusted", which is often a mistake |
10:11 |
tomeu |
and I don't like the word leader, each team needs a coordinator but several of its members can have a leader role in different areas |
10:11 |
bernie |
walterbender: team leaders is just a way to include everyone who is trusted enough to lead a team |
10:11 |
SeanDaly |
there are problems real quick if developers not in the loop |
10:11 |
bernie |
tomeu: I also see the downside, that's true |
10:12 |
SeanDaly |
at the same time, not all devs want all marketing info all the time |
10:12 |
bernie |
mel: I have a counterproposal - instead of having a teams@ list, make it a req that each team has a slobs in the loop for that team |
10:12 |
SeanDaly |
to put it mildly |
10:12 |
bernie |
i.e. each team would have a "SLOBs ambassador" |
10:12 |
walterbender |
bernie: in theory we have that already. |
10:12 |
|
it is in our bylaws |
10:12 |
cjb |
SJ was telling me about wikipedia does this |
10:12 |
tomeu |
bernie: as I said, I think we have coordinators, that may be defacto leaders, or not |
10:13 |
cjb |
they say you can *only* start a team if you can find a board member to sit on it, or something |
10:13 |
bernie |
walterbender: in practice, though? |
10:13 |
walterbender |
bernie: for the most part, yes. |
10:13 |
cjb |
so it's sort of the opposite of our decision panel rules; rather than requiring no members of the board, they require at least one |
10:13 |
bernie |
walterbender:if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues? |
10:13 |
walterbender |
bernie: infrastruture-you; marketing-sean; etc. |
10:14 |
|
activities-me |
10:14 |
bernie |
bernie: but we only have 7 people on the board |
10:14 |
walterbender |
and not so many teams either |
10:14 |
bernie |
mel: but a SLOB can be an ambassador for 2 teams if needed |
10:14 |
|
mel asks again: if this was implemented well in practice, would it solve our confidentiality issues? |
10:15 |
cjb |
we can "solve our confidentiality issues" by not being too lazy to write out addresses of individuals on e-mails when we need to, though |
10:15 |
walterbender |
I guess I (a) don't understand what are confidentiality issues are and (b) don't understand how another list would solve the problem I don't understand |
10:15 |
cjb |
and if we do that, we haven't just split our community into people we like and people we don't |
10:15 |
tomeu |
cjb++ |
10:15 |
cjb |
at least not in a way that's obvious to them :) |
10:16 |
bernie |
mel: bernie and I just clarified something between us - the "SLOBs ambassadors requirement" for teams would be for a SLOBs person to be actively watching that team, not necessarily leading it |
10:16 |
|
(bernie had thought it was that a SLOB had to be leading the team) |
10:16 |
walterbender |
bernie: in factr, in almost every case, the SLOBs member is NOT the leader, which is a good thing. |
10:16 |
bernie |
mel: cjb++ |
10:16 |
cjb |
so my thought is that this proposal has the potential to create much more harm than good |
10:16 |
|
even though I can see that it could create some good |
10:17 |
walterbender |
bernie: is a motion emerging from this discussion? |
10:17 |
bernie |
mel: I'd like to propose the motion that we have SLOBs ambassadors to each team, instead of a teams@ list |
10:17 |
|
bernie: I would agree on that. |
10:17 |
cjb |
what happens in the weird case of no-one wanting to be their ambassador? |
10:18 |
walterbender |
bernie: maybe the motion should be that we ensure that we execute on that structure, which is already in our by-laws |
10:18 |
cjb |
does the ambassador have to go to all that team's meetings? |
10:18 |
SeanDaly |
perhaps it's early to do this. If there were 3x the number of volunteers, i think it would more useful. |
10:18 |
tomeu |
btw, we have teams without coordinators, I don't see how we are talking about this before having found a coordinator for each |
10:18 |
bernie |
mel: cjb: it would be a requirement for a team to have /an/ ambassador, I'd say |
10:18 |
tomeu |
we don't even have a community manager yet |
10:18 |
bernie |
mel: cjb: but how the ambassador and the team interface doesn't have to be strictly defined right now |
10:18 |
SeanDaly |
or an education/content manager... |
10:19 |
cjb |
so, this idea is obviously much less objectionable |
10:19 |
|
but I don't think it solves the same problem |
10:19 |
|
and I don't know that the problem it solves is actually one we have |
10:19 |
bernie |
Adam: i think this is a useful conversation, but I'm not sure if we can encode these responsibilities easily. |
10:19 |
walterbender |
deserves the heat because making sure the by-laws are observed is probably the responsibility of the ED |
10:19 |
bernie |
mel: I think this is a good convo to take to Planet as a conversation starter, but we probably can't make much more progress on it right now |
10:20 |
tomeu |
also, the only team with regular meetings is the marketing team |
10:20 |
bernie |
bernie: +1 |
10:20 |
|
adam: +1 |
10:20 |
cjb |
+1 |
10:20 |
SeanDaly |
regular as long as I'm not moving house :D |
10:20 |
tomeu |
and the only other one that has occasional meetings is the dev team |
10:20 |
walterbender |
in any case, it seems we are not planning to move forward with Bernie's original proposal at this time? |
10:20 |
tomeu |
so I don't know what sense makes to say that slobs attends team meetings |
10:20 |
bernie |
mel: that's what I think |
10:21 |
|
bernie: that's fine |
10:21 |
SeanDaly |
I think revisit the topic for the happy day we have enough volunteers that not everybody knows everybody |
10:21 |
bernie |
adam: I do like what mel said - as long as it's not enforced, to have that expectation... |
10:21 |
walterbender |
I will volunteer to crack the whip to ensure we have a mapping between SLOBs and teams. |
10:21 |
bernie |
adam: that the team coordinator builds a social relationship with slobs |
10:21 |
|
mel: moving on then? |
10:21 |
walterbender |
bernie: are you satisfied? |
10:22 |
bernie |
yes |
10:22 |
walterbender |
OK. |
10:22 |
|
to summarize: we will not implement the teams@ list at this time, but will mae a concerted effrot to ensure that there is SLOBs presence on all teams. |
10:23 |
|
#TOPIC SoaS DP |
10:23 |
|
Have any of you on the bus heard back from the DP? |
10:23 |
|
none of the rest of us have. |
10:23 |
bernie |
all three: no |
10:23 |
walterbender |
:( |
10:24 |
|
I think this means that we have to dissolve the panel |
10:24 |
|
as per our discussion last time. |
10:24 |
SeanDaly |
when was deadline again pls? |
10:24 |
walterbender |
today. |
10:24 |
SeanDaly |
yes, disappointing. |
10:25 |
bernie |
mel: ok, so we dissolve the panel and then who handles the decision? slobs? |
10:25 |
cjb |
mel: that would be my preference |
10:25 |
walterbender |
that is what we need to decide |
10:25 |
bernie |
mel: mine as well |
10:25 |
cjb |
I don't think this situation is encoded in our bylaws |
10:25 |
|
so we get to wing it :) |
10:25 |
bernie |
mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs |
10:26 |
cjb |
seconded |
10:26 |
walterbender |
discussion? |
10:26 |
cjb |
this seems uncontroversial to me. any objections? |
10:26 |
tomeu |
I thought it was already like that |
10:26 |
walterbender |
in some sense, we already have that responsibility |
10:26 |
cjb |
tomeu: we hadn't really talked about it |
10:27 |
bernie |
bernie: I think we still ought to take into account the consensus of the DP that was summarized in the wiki |
10:27 |
tomeu |
cjb: does the slobs give any power to the dp when it's created? |
10:27 |
cjb |
tomeu: no, not really |
10:27 |
tomeu |
I thought it was only a consultative thing |
10:27 |
cjb |
bernie: I'm not sure about that |
10:27 |
tomeu |
then the slobs have always retained the responsibility of deciding on thast |
10:27 |
SeanDaly |
yes, SLOBs should inspect the status of work even if no consensus reached |
10:27 |
cjb |
of course, whoever proposes a new decision on the topic should read the DP's work first |
10:27 |
walterbender |
the DP is suppose to make a recommendation to SLOBs for some action. |
10:27 |
cjb |
but the DP's work is not complete |
10:27 |
walterbender |
in this case, no recommendation, but lots of fruitful discussion |
10:28 |
|
we can make a decision based on that input or ask for a new DP |
10:28 |
cjb |
so we shouldn't just take it as gospel or anything. it's just something to read and help educate us. |
10:28 |
bernie |
bernie: cjb: so do we disregard the DP decision even when there was a clear consensus? |
10:28 |
cjb |
bernie: yes. |
10:28 |
|
that's what dissolving the DP means. |
10:28 |
bernie |
cjb: ah, after reading your explanation., I'd tend to agree. |
10:28 |
walterbender |
bernie: and presumably get voted off the island as a result |
10:29 |
cjb |
:) |
10:29 |
bernie |
mel; so i had a motion and cjb seconded it... do we want to discuss it more, or vote? |
10:29 |
|
(that would give us a way to move forward with the DP's decision and actually make a decision) |
10:29 |
walterbender |
I am not sure we need a motion because it is how I would interpret the staus quo, but a motion won't hurt for clarity's sake |
10:29 |
bernie |
mel: motion - when a DP fails to meet a deadline, the decision passes to slobs. |
10:29 |
walterbender |
shall we vote? |
10:29 |
cjb |
aye |
10:30 |
bernie |
mel: aye |
10:30 |
SeanDaly |
aye |
10:30 |
walterbender |
aye |
10:30 |
tomeu |
as I said, I don't understand why we vote this |
10:30 |
bernie |
adam: tends to agree with tomeu |
10:30 |
cjb |
tomeu: it's just a point of clarification |
10:30 |
tomeu |
is it said anywhere that the decision is removed from the slobs at any point? |
10:30 |
cjb |
nope |
10:31 |
|
I think the reason it's slightly unintuitive is: |
10:31 |
|
* The bylaws say we get to solve conflict by starting a decision panel |
10:31 |
tomeu |
well, then I think we need to leave very clearly that the decision is always left to the slobs |
10:31 |
|
if someone thinks otherwise, it's bad |
10:31 |
cjb |
tomeu: that's what the vote helps to do :) |
10:31 |
|
* and if a DP fails... well, maybe we just start another one or something |
10:31 |
tomeu |
ok, if people think it helps, I vote yes |
10:32 |
bernie |
adam: feels we've already voted on this previously |
10:32 |
cjb |
the vote passed already :) |
10:33 |
|
next up: would someone like to volunteer to review the DP work, and create a motion to solve the original problem with? |
10:33 |
|
it should probably be several of us, or even all of us |
10:33 |
walterbender |
adam: we certainly discussed it last week, but I think we were all holding out for a DP report :( |
10:33 |
|
cjb: yes. I think that is the next step in regard to this particular issue. |
10:34 |
bernie |
FYI: This computer will die in less than 5 min |
10:34 |
cjb |
heh |
10:34 |
bernie |
bernie, mel, adam will be offline then |
10:34 |
walterbender |
and I think we should make a decision next week. |
10:34 |
bernie |
Be quick! |
10:34 |
cjb |
bernie: which of you wants to be involved in coming up with a decision on the DP work? |
10:35 |
|
walterbender: make a decision on the original request, right? |
10:35 |
walterbender |
#ACTION: everyone reviews the DP work and comes prepared next week to discuss and decide. |
10:35 |
cjb |
ok |
10:35 |
|
it might be good to have the motions available before the meeting |
10:35 |
walterbender |
if there are questions, raise them BEFORE the meeting to the list |
10:35 |
bernie |
bernie: cjb: I'll leave this hot potato to someone else :) |
10:35 |
cjb |
so if folks could e-mail them as they come up with them |
10:35 |
|
that'd be good |
10:35 |
walterbender |
by list, I mean iaep [SLOBS] |
10:35 |
cjb |
I'll volunteer to try to review all their stuff and think about it/come up with a motion |
10:36 |
|
would be good if others can too |
10:36 |
walterbender |
thanks cjb |
10:36 |
bernie |
bernie: cjb: mel is currently busy with fudbus business |
10:36 |
cjb |
any other urgent business for this meeting? |
10:36 |
walterbender |
just discussion, I think |
10:36 |
SeanDaly |
well, I wanted to know if possible put e-books in ASLO |
10:36 |
walterbender |
the policies re ebooks, acitvities, etc |
10:37 |
|
and of course, the trademark issue |
10:37 |
cjb |
oh, yes! |
10:37 |
bernie |
adam: agreed..i'll remind SJ & Caryl to weigh in if they have final thoughts on DP's wiki page, even if defunct |
10:37 |
SeanDaly |
I haven't thought deeply on implications, was caught short with licensing issue |
10:37 |
cjb |
motion: no non-free software or content on ASLO, as judged by DFSG/OSI |
10:37 |
walterbender |
but we will have to carry on without our FUDCon friends :( |
10:37 |
cjb |
fudbus folks, what'd you think? |
10:37 |
walterbender |
#TOPIC non-FOSS content |
10:37 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: it may be more convenient if we found one or more partners who wanted to take the content side of all this |
10:37 |
|
SeanDaly: so we don't have to spread ourselves too thin |
10:38 |
bernie |
bernie: ok, switching battery |
10:38 |
SeanDaly |
no, the context is helping parents/teachers get started with e-books |
10:38 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: so not solving the whole content problem but some first step? |
10:39 |
SeanDaly |
there are hundreds, thousands out there, idea is to help newbies use in Sugar |
10:39 |
|
yes, first step |
10:39 |
|
we wstarted wiki page for that |
10:39 |
walterbender |
this parallels the debate we had at OLPC re content. |
10:39 |
SeanDaly |
wiki page may be better than ASLO |
10:39 |
walterbender |
we can never do more than plant seeds |
10:39 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: so maybe there's enough free content out there? |
10:40 |
walterbender |
and show others how to take initiative |
10:40 |
SeanDaly |
tomeu: there's a vast amount, but when there isn't any with Sugar or close by, it's a technical barrier |
10:40 |
|
idea is to have a few available, so people can try ereaders |
10:40 |
walterbender |
I don't believe it is our mission to solve the content problem, but lowering technical and culture barriers is our mission |
10:41 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: I mean, there isn't enough free content to "solve the whole content problem", but there may be enough free content for that first step |
10:41 |
SeanDaly |
and hint how to search in repositories, online etc. |
10:41 |
|
tomeu: yes, we had put effort into finding a dozen nice books in half a dozen languages |
10:42 |
|
idea is to make first step easy: find, obtain, what format, which Activity |
10:42 |
walterbender |
what is the SLOBs issue here? seems we are drifting off topic |
10:43 |
tomeu |
ok, so do we need to tackle the issue of non-free content on aslo right now? |
10:43 |
cjb |
walterbender: I made a motion and everything :) |
10:43 |
|
there are two issues, related: |
10:43 |
|
* someone wants to put Skype etc on ASLO |
10:43 |
|
* someone wants to put non-free ebooks on ASLO |
10:43 |
walterbender |
tomeu: yes in that there are some non-free activities waiting for approval |
10:43 |
SeanDaly |
issue was: ASLO a place for content bundles? |
10:43 |
tomeu |
oh, ok |
10:43 |
cjb |
in both cases this was kinda reasonable, because there was no-one saying "oh, we have a policy against doing those" |
10:43 |
bernie |
bernie: back in business |
10:43 |
tomeu |
in the skype case, I guess it's plain ilegal, even if we really wanted to do that, right? |
10:43 |
cjb |
tomeu: yes |
10:44 |
tomeu |
and is there any other non-free but freely-distributable software proposed for aslo? |
10:44 |
cjb |
tomeu: just the content, I think |
10:44 |
walterbender |
bernie: http://pastebin.be/22311 |
10:44 |
bernie |
mel: we do not have a license policy on what can go on ASLO, right? |
10:44 |
SeanDaly |
piles of flash stuff? |
10:44 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: flash stuff can be free |
10:45 |
|
bernie: right -- currently no |
10:45 |
|
bernie: we'd be creating one now |
10:45 |
tomeu |
SeanDaly: but isn't most flash stuff out there without any license info at all? |
10:45 |
|
so we don't really know if it's actually freely-distributable |
10:45 |
SeanDaly |
cjb: free as in 4 freedoms? |
10:45 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: legally, yes |
10:45 |
|
you can make a Flash app and release it under the GPL |
10:46 |
bernie |
I'd like to have something like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing |
10:46 |
SeanDaly |
huge amount of free-online in Flash has no license info, |
10:46 |
cjb |
I still think flash apps don't provide useful versions of the four freedoms, but that's a much more subtle point |
10:46 |
bernie |
which includes a list of acceptable licenses, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses |
10:46 |
|
(this is Mel) |
10:46 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: sure, I agree |
10:46 |
SeanDaly |
I think because offline Flash difficult so always assumed to be online |
10:46 |
walterbender |
cjb: not sure where you put or access the license info in Flash |
10:46 |
bernie |
mel: basically, have a legal req for content posted on ASLO (possibly extend that to other things that SL distributes, but ASLO seems to be the issue at present) |
10:46 |
cjb |
Mel: We could do that, or just adopt the DFSG/OSI rules |
10:47 |
|
Mel: The advantage of using the rules is that they cope with new licenses as well as current ones. |
10:47 |
bernie |
mel: I'm happy with any non-ambiguous statement of what we do and don't allow license-wise, honestly. |
10:47 |
cjb |
walterbender: that's a good point |
10:47 |
bernie |
cjb: link? |
10:47 |
cjb |
http://opensource.org/docs/osd |
10:47 |
bernie |
mel: that sounds like a good idea to me though |
10:47 |
cjb |
the Debian Free Software Guidelines are basically identical |
10:48 |
|
MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as the source for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content |
10:48 |
bernie |
bus riders are looking at the link, one sec |
10:48 |
SeanDaly |
I'd rather read that first before voting on anything |
10:49 |
cjb |
ok. we could postpone. |
10:49 |
walterbender |
so another homework assignment so we can vote next week? |
10:49 |
bernie |
mel: I'm good with the list |
10:49 |
|
mel: I've read it already |
10:49 |
tomeu |
and I guess SFC has a say on this? |
10:49 |
walterbender |
but we seem to have consensus on the basic idea? |
10:50 |
tomeu |
because relates to their mission? |
10:50 |
cjb |
tomeu: yes. we mentioned the idea that we might distribute something that isn't on this list (ebooks under CC noncommercial license), and they decided they'd have to talk to their board about it |
10:50 |
walterbender |
I'll check with the SFC. They owe us a response re NC and ND licenses already :) |
10:50 |
cjb |
so I'm sure they're very much in agreement with the motion |
10:51 |
|
(that was about SoaS, though, not ASLO) |
10:51 |
bernie |
bernie: cjb: while I agree with the OSI definition of what constitutes an open source license, I'd much prefer a list of acceptable licenses rather than a set of rules that would force us to go through a lawyer every time we see a new license. |
10:51 |
cjb |
bernie: both are useful, neither are sufficient |
10:51 |
|
bernie: if someone proposes Skype |
10:51 |
walterbender |
bernie: http://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical |
10:51 |
|
that is a list |
10:51 |
bernie |
mel: they're not incompatible, we can say "our legal thing is the OSD, here's a list of licenses we know fit these criteria, new ones come talk to us." |
10:51 |
cjb |
and I can't find "the Skype license" in Fedora's list |
10:51 |
SeanDaly |
ASLO is response to SoaS problem |
10:51 |
cjb |
I need a way to reject it |
10:51 |
bernie |
mel: walterbender: exactly |
10:51 |
cjb |
(legally happened to work in this example) |
10:51 |
|
but anyway, many times random non-free software might be proposed |
10:52 |
|
it won't always have a license on that list, or a license at all |
10:52 |
|
so the motion helps by giving community guidelines on what *type* of software is permitted |
10:52 |
|
let's rephrase, though: |
10:53 |
|
MOTION: adopt http://opensource.org/docs/osd as a set of guidelines for what is permitted on ASLO, for both software and content, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/[…]ing#Good_Licenses's opinions on specific licenses where applicable |
10:53 |
|
bernie: does that cover your concern? |
10:53 |
walterbender |
cjb: this still skirts the other issue though: does the content or s'ware abide by community standards... a tough one. |
10:53 |
bernie |
bernie: cjb aye |
10:53 |
SeanDaly |
I cannot rush into a vote without reading and understanding that page. |
10:53 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: that's fine. I won't push you to. |
10:53 |
SeanDaly |
Something I can't do in the next 30 seconds. |
10:53 |
bernie |
mel: Table for next meeting, reading homework for next week? |
10:53 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: I just want the motion to be clear. |
10:54 |
bernie |
mel: I'll take the homework assignment of blogging this so that others pick up on it on Planet (and hopefully Fedora folks can chime in as well) |
10:54 |
|
(and $otherdistros if we can get them) |
10:54 |
walterbender |
OK. I think we have enough background now to move quickly to a decision next week. |
10:54 |
SeanDaly |
walterbender: yes |
10:54 |
cjb |
mel: thanks! |
10:54 |
|
that's a good idea |
10:54 |
bernie |
#action mchua to blog licensing motion |
10:54 |
walterbender |
OK. Next topic? We have about 5 more minutes. |
10:55 |
bernie |
#action everyone to do their homework of reading OSD guidelines so we can be informed voters next Friday |
10:55 |
|
mel: yeah, let's move on |
10:55 |
walterbender |
#ACTION mel blog and the rest of us do homework with the intention of deciding next week |
10:55 |
|
thinks only the person who typed #startmeeting can #action |
10:56 |
bernie |
we'll find out :) |
10:56 |
walterbender |
#TOPIC trademark |
10:56 |
bernie |
walterbender: thanks for raising the nasty "community standards" issue we'll laaaater have to face.. |
10:56 |
|
(adam) |
10:56 |
walterbender |
we have a number of outstanding trademark policies to reach consensus on. |
10:57 |
bernie |
mel: can we line up the to-do list on those and then break for the week with homework? I don't think we have enough time to discuss and vote on anything else atm |
10:57 |
walterbender |
adam: yes. an important, thorny topic. |
10:57 |
|
mel: I agree. |
10:57 |
SeanDaly |
very thorny indeed |
10:57 |
bernie |
mel: and honestly ASLO licensing is kind of a big deal so if we line that up for next week's Big Goal I'm pretty happy |
10:58 |
walterbender |
I'd like everyone to come to the next meeting with some opinion re the trademark usage. |
10:58 |
|
from my homework, it seems the two extremes are Fedora and Suse |
10:58 |
bernie |
mel: proposal everyone blog their opinion or email it to iaep |
10:58 |
walterbender |
to gist: Fedora will let anything be called a remix, but almost nothing be called Fedora |
10:58 |
cjb |
Fedora's not actually that extreme, because it offers both models: |
10:58 |
|
.. yeah, those. :) |
10:59 |
walterbender |
openSuse will not allow remix at all |
10:59 |
cjb |
it's easy to be a Remix, and it's hard to be Fedora |
10:59 |
bernie |
mel: we need to do more about starting discussion on slobs issues beyond the 7 of us imo |
10:59 |
walterbender |
cjb: yes. that is what I was trying to say |
10:59 |
SeanDaly |
concerning trademark, there are several kilos worth of e-mails in the lists |
10:59 |
walterbender |
and to contrast that with openSUSE, which as far as I understand, really doesn't have a remix option |
11:00 |
|
SeanDaly: yes. it is time to distill it all into a policy |
11:00 |
SeanDaly |
yes, fully aggree |
11:00 |
|
s/gg/g |
11:00 |
bernie |
bernie: walterbender, cjb: I'd like to point out that the fedora trademark policy is one of the strictest among linux distros |
11:01 |
walterbender |
bernie: seeming not as strict as openSUSE. |
11:01 |
bernie |
mel: I'd like to propose we wrap up this meeting |
11:01 |
SeanDaly |
my instinct is to look at trademark policy of better-known brands |
11:01 |
walterbender |
bernie: can you give an example of a less strict policy for us to consider? |
11:01 |
bernie |
mel: proposal - next week do ASLO and only ASLO - anything else we do is bonus... immediately after ASLO, then tackle trademark. |
11:01 |
cjb |
hm |
11:01 |
walterbender |
(everyone was going to research one for today's meeting) |
11:01 |
bernie |
mel: notes that bernie and I have to go to the infra meeting immediately after this |
11:02 |
cjb |
mel: this is instead of doing the SoaS DP next week? |
11:02 |
|
I don't know why we'd prioritize something that's been a problem for a week over something that's been a problem for like four months :) |
11:02 |
walterbender |
I think we need to do both. the ASLO discussion will be quick. |
11:02 |
bernie |
cjb: because I think we can wrap up ASLO next week cleanly and be done with it |
11:02 |
walterbender |
(I predict) |
11:02 |
bernie |
(mel) |
11:02 |
cjb |
yeah, +1 on walter |
11:02 |
bernie |
mel: then I'd like to do ASLO first ;) |
11:02 |
|
if we think it'll be that quick |
11:02 |
walterbender |
but we should wrap up today's meeting. |
11:02 |
cjb |
well, okay.. yeah, was about to say that too |
11:03 |
SeanDaly |
There is a current case of trademark usage |
11:03 |
cjb |
(what mel said) |
11:03 |
walterbender |
any final words? |
11:03 |
SeanDaly |
in a way that shouldn't |
11:03 |
bernie |
mel: nope, happy to close now |
11:03 |
walterbender |
3 |
11:03 |
|
2 |
11:03 |
|
1 |
11:03 |
cjb |
SeanDaly: let's talk about that now |
11:03 |
bernie |
Bye from the FUDbuss @ |
11:03 |
cjb |
but in the closed meeting |
11:03 |
walterbender |
thanks everyone |
11:03 |
SeanDaly |
cjb:ok |
11:03 |
|
thanks all |
11:03 |
cjb |
I mean, let's hang around and talk about it |
11:03 |
|
thanks all |
11:03 |
walterbender |
I'll post the minutes |
11:03 |
|
#endmeeting |